Public Account Viability Study, Do Not Go Single Into That Good Night … Options

Rage, Rage Against The Dying Of Your Rights —

— epologies to Dylan, y'know, the other Dylan

Jonny

Dynamic Page — Our Most Unfughettaboutable Public Accounts

For ease of future reference, I will use this page to keep a list of known public accounts on the English Wikipedia. The passwords are in guillemets («…»).

1. Ablebakercharliedelta «deltacharliebakerable»
2. BABBUØ «babbubabbu»
3. BABBU1 «babbubabbu»
4. Badlytwice «twicebadly»
5. Bag Of Moldy Tangerines «bomtbomt»
6. Bare In Mind «bimbim»
7. Be Excited About Reading «bearbear»
8. Buchanan's Navy Sec «toucey»
9. Calvin Coolidge's Bird Dog «paloalto»
10. Catriona MacGregor Drummond «cmdcmd»
11. DABBUØ «dabbudabbu»
12. DABBU1 «dabbudabbu»
13. Daffy Dean «deandaffy»
14. Dancesince «sincedance»
15. Delusion Of Power «dopdopdop»
16. Earthboat «boatearth»
17. Education Is The Basis Of Law And Order «eitbolao»
18. Enjoyexist «existenjoy»
19. DEBBU «debbudebbu»
20. DEBBUØ «debbudebbu»
21. LBJ's collie «blanco»
22. Learndraft «draftlearn»
23. Libertyvalley «valleyliberty»
24. Mr. Peabody's Boy «sherman»
25. Mister Peabody's First Name «hector»
26. Mumsword «swordmum»
27. Patchcock «cockpatch»
28. Preveiling Opinion Of Dominant Opinion Group «poodogpoodog»
29. RABBU «rabburabbu»
30. RABBUØ «rabburabbu»
31. REBBU «rebburebbu»
32. REBBUØ «rebburebbu»
33. Selaw Serutan «natureswales»
34. Sureupon «uponsure»
35. Unctious Uncle «uncleunctious»
36. VOCØ «vocvocvoc»
37. VOPØ «vopvopvop»
38. Wolf of the Steppes «wotswots»

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 20th November 2007, 6:52pm

Incidentally, a few administrators have taken to automatically and blindly reverting bona fide contributions by all accounts that it enters their pointy widdle heads to free associate with previously banned accounts.

Let's help em …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 11th November 2007, 4:52pm

For ease of future reference, I will use this page to keep a list of known public accounts on the English Wikipedia. The passwords are in guillemets («…»).

1. Ablebakercharliedelta «deltacharliebakerable»
2. BABBUØ «babbubabbu»
3. Badlytwice «twicebadly»
4. Bag Of Moldy Tangerines «bomtbomt»
5. Be Excited About Reading «bearbear»
6. Calvin Coolidge's Bird Dog «paloalto»
7. Daffy Dean «deandaffy»
8. Dancesince «sincedance»
9. Earthboat «boatearth»
10. LBJ's collie «blanco»
11. Learndraft «draftlearn»
12. Libertyvalley «valleyliberty»
13. Mumsword «swordmum»
14. Patchcock «cockpatch»
15. Selaw Serutan «natureswales»
16. Sureupon «uponsure»
17. Unctious Uncle «uncleunctious»
18. VOPØ «vopvopvop»

Not all public accounts are alike, of course. They come in an amazing variety of different colors, flavors, scents, and spices. I will keep adding to the above honor roll as you and I discover and elect to disclose them, but this first Dirty Half Again Dozen provides us with sample enough to illustrate their genera and their species in concrete particular.

It's unfortunate that we — For The Time Being (FTTB) — are constrained to discuss Public Accounts by and large in the unctious funereal tones of e-comium, e-pitaph, e-ulogy, obituary, and wikipanegyric — Alas! to know one while it lives 'tis a far, far better thing we do than we'll ever do wikiposthumorously. Well, you know, ∑ of em.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 10th November 2007, 4:40pm

They are all blocked, and the one that isn't is password scrambled.

That's All She Wrote …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 11th November 2007, 5:02am

They are all blocked, and the one that isn't is password scrambled.

Of course they are. A public display of public accounts can hardly escape being a retrospective, or quickly become a retrospective as soon as it opens.

The past is prologue — the purpose of this revue is to provide exemplars for future generations of PACMANKIND.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 11th November 2007, 3:28am

That's All She Wrote …

Revert The Sender …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 11th November 2007, 5:04am

REBBU, REBBU, Your Φace Is A Message!!!

1. BABBUØ «babbubabbu»
2. BABBU1 «babbubabbu»
3. DABBUØ «dabbudabbu»
4. DABBU1 «dabbudabbu»
5. DEBBU «debbudebbu»
6. DEBBUØ «debbudebbu»
7. RABBU «rabburabbu»
8. RABBUØ «rabburabbu»
9. REBBU «rebburebbu»
10. REBBUØ «rebburebbu»

CANNU Find The Live Ones ???

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 11th November 2007, 3:40pm

That's All She Wrote …

Jonny

. . . Dear Jon; they fetched your saddle home.

That's All She Wrote …

Jonny

. . . Dear Jon; they fetched your saddle home.

Oh look, they're playin' our song …

Howlin' At The Moonies

Jonny

Progress!

Well, Wiki-Progress, but what can you expect …

It's so damn hard to commoonikate wi' dose guys …

In our ever-good-faithful e-devoirs to call their oblivid detentions to the ever-glaring and ever-{{stub}}born accountability and security problems in their system, we have finally gotten the most fittingly named Rx StrangleLuv to recognize the existence of Public Accounts.

Suφicient unto the day are the Tribbles thereof, as Bill was ever wont to say …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 11th November 2007, 4:34pm

Incidentally, a few administrators have taken to automatically and blindly reverting bona fide contributions by all accounts that it enters their pointy widdle heads to free associate with previously banned accounts.

Let's help em …

Jonny

Well that is an interesting quandry those admins have found themselves in.

Case in point: The Charade That Is Piperdown Banned as Wordbomb

That makes me a sock of a banned user, who was banned prior to my wikibirfday in March 2007.
So all of my edits, articles created, etc, are fair game for the delete/revert hammer.

Will someone please get right on that? Do refer to my wikicontributions on the left margin here.

We can't have Wikipolicy subverted.

And we can't have wikidikitater idi-admeens like David Gerard be made a fool of by not following policy, and the applicable trickle down effects of their edicts.

Incidentally, a few administrators have taken to automatically and blindly reverting bona fide contributions by all accounts that it enters their pointy widdle heads to free associate with previously banned accounts.

Let's help em …

Jonny

Well that is an interesting quandry those admins have found themselves in.

Case in point: The Charade That Is Piperdown Banned as Wordbomb

That makes me a sock of a banned user, who was banned prior to my wikibirfday in March 2007.

So all of my edits, articles created, etc, are fair game for the delete/revert hammer.

Will someone please get right on that? Do refer to my wikicontributions on the left margin here.

We can't have Wikipolicy subverted.

And we can't have wikidikitater idi-admeens like David Gerard be made a fool of by not following policy, and the applicable trickle down effects of their edicts.

Well, get on it yerself. How hard is that? Not A Bit.

Though it isn't actually necessary to use public accounts, there's really no reason not to do so. All you have to do is drop a few clues about your preferred styles of usernym-password association, and you're off and running with the PACMAN in-crowd.

It's Φun ! It's EZ ! Tell your φrenz !

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 11th November 2007, 5:20pm

Well, get on it yerself. How hard is that? Not A Bit.

Though it isn't actually necessary to use public accounts, there's really no reason not to do so. All you have to do is drop a few clues about your preferred styles of usernym-password association, and you're off and running with the PACMAN in-crowd.

It's Φun ! It's EZ ! Tell your φrenz !

Jonny

hmm. well since I don't have the expertise necessary to go through the efforts to make ip/sock account edits, only to find them reverted 0.05 seconds later, I'd prefer that a WP'ian with the In-Crowd follow their own policy. I'm an outlaw, just like Johnny Cash, so any reversions I'd make would just be reverted under the first layer of the policy, and no one would bother to fully apply that same rule, consistently (kind of like how SlimJay let Berlet edit in his own shit, but not Sparkzilla. And Weiss. And Winans. Etc.), and so down the piper's articles and edits.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Sun 11th November 2007, 6:02pm

Well, get on it yerself. How hard is that? Not A Bit.

Though it isn't actually necessary to use public accounts, there's really no reason not to do so. All you have to do is drop a few clues about your preferred styles of usernym-password association, and you're off and running with the PACMAN in-crowd.

It's Φun ! It's EZ ! Tell your φrenz !

Jonny

hmm. well since I don't have the expertise necessary to go through the efforts to make ip/sock account edits, only to find them reverted 0.05 seconds later, I'd prefer that a WP'ian with the In-Crowd follow their own policy. I'm an outlaw, just like Johnny Cash, so any reversions I'd make would just be reverted under the first layer of the policy, and no one would bother to fully apply that same rule, consistently (kind of like how SlimJay let Berlet edit in his own shit, but not Sparkzilla. And Weiss. And Winans. Etc.), and so down the piper's articles and edits.

Oh, I think that the WR:PUNT of the Xercise is more to Xecute just a tiny bit of clue-sticking to Wikipediots.

Who knows? If enuff bandittos like us who once contributed their Works and their Days to that Wiki-Pie-In-The-Sky were to start redacting and retracting the fleeces that were shorn from the sweat of their wiki-backs-&-brows under the false pretences of the WMF wiki-plantation overseers, then maybe, just maybe 1 or 2 of them will think to ask themselves that all-important Categorical Interrogative — «Gee, what if everyone we ever banned started doing that?»

Not bluddy likely, I know, but you know me, the Infernal Optimist (IO).

Jonny

That's All She Wrote …

Revert The Sender …

The exchange of views that took place between DABBUØ and Kurykh — before Rx StrangeLove so rudely blanked the talk page — is e-musing, and may even be instructive.

Removal of Text

Howdy and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you have been trying to remove the contributions of a banned user. Although Wikipedia policy does prohibit banned users from editing, it is not the case that all of their contributions made prior to the ban must be removed. If you have concerns about the article content itself, feel free to discuss on the talk page. The other thing to note, it is better to use a deletion process rather than simply blanking the page. Thanks, TeaDrinker 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

I am simply following the de facto policy that I have observed being practiced time and time again, on a consistent and I dare say a persistent basis, by trusted administrators. DABBUØ 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

: You seem to be confused about the ban policy. The policy states that we must revert all edits made by the banned user after the user is banned, not the ones before. There is no de facto policy saying that all edits made by the banned user before the ban must be reverted. Kurykh 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies say a lot of things, and half of them contradict the other half. On top of that, we have the spectacle of Wikipedia Administrators persisting with impunity to violate both the letter and the spirit of a free and open, quality-based wiki project. Faced with all that confoundation of reason, I am forced to resort to common sense, and lucky for me you have a rule that says I can. DABBUØ 23:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Common sense tells me this. A body of editors that uses an author's work, that does not allow the author to continue improving that work, that allows its leadership to destroy work blindly and automatically on the basis of a personal vendetta without even looking at the quality of the revisions — that body of editors has forfeited the right to use that author's work. DABBUØ 23:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

: Wrong. The author releases all rights to his/her work the moment he/she clicks the "save page" button. You do not own anything here. Kurykh 23:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I made no claim of ownership. Nor is one demanded. I am simply defending the intellectual and moral rights of all who have them. It's an often dirty job, but someone has to do it. DABBUØ 23:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

: I meant "you" in the general sense. However, you still seem confused; once you post here, you have no "intellectual and moral rights" over the information you submit. The submitted information is now "free" (with restrictions due to licensing) to be used and/or modified ad infinitum by others for any purpose other than that explicitly forbidden. Kurykh 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Contributors do not press that "save page" button in empty space, but in a context filled with pretensions authorized by the WikiMedia Foundation. Those pretenses have turned out to be false, and so whatever gentleperson's agreement might have been implied by that conjoint transaction is now utterly null and void. DABBUØ 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

: Then whatever grievances you hold with the Wikimedia Foundation should be taken up to there. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia, a collaboration of volunteers under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation and whose members often have no affiliation with the Foundation other than being users and administrators (with implies no official position) of Wikipedia. Kurykh 00:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I was simply telling you how I view it, and how at least one common sense person will most likely continue to view it. Your body of volunteers harbors the seeds of your own disruption. Look Homeward. DABBUØ 00:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 13th November 2007, 12:14pm

Let me harp on a riff or two that arose in the following session between DABBUØ and Kurykh, since I believe that the failure of minds to meet in that discussion illustrates a very important point.

I realized while talking to Greg Kohs a few days ago that many people are confused about just what rights they give up and just what rights they don't give up when they click on that «save» button under the shaggy dag of the GFDL aegis and flush the Love's Labour's Lost of their Life's Work down that Wiki-Plumbèd BrainDrain that we call Wikipedia.

I can speak solely about moral rights, all aside from the matter of how moral rights correlate with legal codes in diverse and sundry locales, and I can do no more than appeal to the court of common sense for its considerations and and its mediate decisions.

The crux of the matter is conveyed well enough by the thesis that DABBUØ picks up here —

Contributors do not press that "save page" button in empty space, but in a context filled with pretensions authorized by the WikiMedia Foundation. Those pretenses have turned out to be false, and so whatever gentleperson's agreement might have been implied by that conjoint transaction is now utterly null and void. DABBUØ 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Source. English Wikipedia User Talk Page For DABBUØ, 13 Nov 2007 UTC 12:12. For the sake of context, the full page is copied below.

What my common sense understanding tells me is that the business transacted between the Owners of the Wikipedia Website and the individual user of that site takes place in a context that bears a large number of reasonable suppositions. Reasonability and truth are matters of degree, and it will bear further examination just how much of either is borne by the context of the business in question. But I think that most people who approach the site of this business would approximate their sense of what occurs there as an exchange of promises — the kind of thing that we do every day when we say, «I will do this if you will do that», where «that» is what the other promises to do in return.

According to my common sense understanding, Wikipedia, whatever it is, community or private entity, has not kept its promise, and as far as I'm concerned this means that all deals are off.

Jon Awbrey

Removal of Text

Howdy and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you have been trying to remove the contributions of a banned user. Although Wikipedia policy does prohibit banned users from editing, it is not the case that all of their contributions made prior to the ban must be removed. If you have concerns about the article content itself, feel free to discuss on the talk page. The other thing to note, it is better to use a deletion process rather than simply blanking the page. Thanks, TeaDrinker 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

I am simply following the de facto policy that I have observed being practiced time and time again, on a consistent and I dare say a persistent basis, by trusted administrators. DABBUØ 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

: You seem to be confused about the ban policy. The policy states that we must revert all edits made by the banned user after the user is banned, not the ones before. There is no de facto policy saying that all edits made by the banned user before the ban must be reverted. Kurykh 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies say a lot of things, and half of them contradict the other half. On top of that, we have the spectacle of Wikipedia Administrators persisting with impunity to violate both the letter and the spirit of a free and open, quality-based wiki project. Faced with all that confoundation of reason, I am forced to resort to common sense, and lucky for me you have a rule that says I can. DABBUØ 23:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Common sense tells me this. A body of editors that uses an author's work, that does not allow the author to continue improving that work, that allows its leadership to destroy work blindly and automatically on the basis of a personal vendetta without even looking at the quality of the revisions — that body of editors has forfeited the right to use that author's work. DABBUØ 23:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

: Wrong. The author releases all rights to his/her work the moment he/she clicks the "save page" button. You do not own anything here. Kurykh 23:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I made no claim of ownership. Nor is one demanded. I am simply defending the intellectual and moral rights of all who have them. It's an often dirty job, but someone has to do it. DABBUØ 23:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

: I meant "you" in the general sense. However, you still seem confused; once you post here, you have no "intellectual and moral rights" over the information you submit. The submitted information is now "free" (with restrictions due to licensing) to be used and/or modified ad infinitum by others for any purpose other than that explicitly forbidden. Kurykh 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Contributors do not press that "save page" button in empty space, but in a context filled with pretensions authorized by the WikiMedia Foundation. Those pretenses have turned out to be false, and so whatever gentleperson's agreement might have been implied by that conjoint transaction is now utterly null and void. DABBUØ 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

: Then whatever grievances you hold with the Wikimedia Foundation should be taken up to there. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia, a collaboration of volunteers under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation and whose members often have no affiliation with the Foundation other than being users and administrators (with implies no official position) of Wikipedia. Kurykh 00:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I was simply telling you how I view it, and how at least one common sense person will most likely continue to view it. Your body of volunteers harbors the seeds of your own disruption. Look Homeward. DABBUØ 00:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 22nd November 2007, 4:12am

I can speak solely about moral rights, all aside from the matter of how moral rights correlate with legal codes in diverse and sundry locales, and I can do no more than appeal to the court of common sense for its considerations and and its mediate decisions.

Hmmm.... It would be easy to reply with the standard answer, i.e., that the terms "moral" and "common sense" have never figured into anything WP has ever done, unless maybe you put the letters "im" in front of "moral" as a prefix. ("Common senselessness," maybe?)

But seriously though, what are the chances that some sort of morality-based principle could be imposed on WP of the sort that you're advocating? There have to be a few people over there with some sense of morality, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to put it as simply as I can, you're saying that if someone writes a bunch of articles, gets banned for violating policies that changed after the articles were written - changes the author consistently disagreed with - and the articles themselves are substantially unchanged from the original author's versions, the moral thing to do would be for WP to "courtesy-delete" the articles on the user's request, correct?

Like you suggest, this would be putting aside the issue of whether or not they're legally obligated to do so (and most would probably agree that they aren't, not in the strict sense at least).

Personally, I think that would be the moral thing to do, absolutely. But I'll also say this: If you couch it in terms like "Wikipedia has failed to live up to its promises," IMO they'll ignore you 100 percent of the time. Putting it in terms that are more like a standard logical argument might at least win you a few sympathizers among the Faithful... I still doubt it would be enough to generate even one AfD nomination, but you never know, I suppose.

Interesting problem!

The thing is that any editor knows that once he submit he decide to share. I don't think morality is involved in what regards the ownership of the material From what I understood from Jonny, and here I agree with him, is that if the worth of your contributions was questioned and that once banned every new contributions are equaled with vandalism then why your contribution is still kept and removing it would be considered as vandalism? I think actually that past contributions should be (to be consistant) be considered as more disruptive than newer ones after the ban Since for the newer ones the disruptions beside evading a ban have yet to be demonstrated while the past ones have been deonstrated as disruptive by the actual ban.

Where I think morality is involved is the appopriation of the work by kicking its major contributor out without permitting him to edit. This I think warrant a warning for readers to be aware that the major contributor is forbidden to contrinue contributing, more so when the community want to keep those articles.

I can speak solely about moral rights, all aside from the matter of how moral rights correlate with legal codes in diverse and sundry locales, and I can do no more than appeal to the court of common sense for its considerations and and its mediate decisions.

Hmmm.... It would be easy to reply with the standard answer, i.e., that the terms "moral" and "common sense" have never figured into anything WP has ever done, unless maybe you put the letters "im" in front of "moral" as a prefix. ("Common senselessness," maybe?)

But seriously though, what are the chances that some sort of morality-based principle could be imposed on WP of the sort that you're advocating? There have to be a few people over there with some sense of morality, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to put it as simply as I can, you're saying that if someone writes a bunch of articles, gets banned for violating policies that changed after the articles were written - changes the author consistently disagreed with - and the articles themselves are substantially unchanged from the original author's versions, the moral thing to do would be for WP to "courtesy-delete" the articles on the user's request, correct?

Like you suggest, this would be putting aside the issue of whether or not they're legally obligated to do so (and most would probably agree that they aren't, not in the strict sense at least).

Personally, I think that would be the moral thing to do, absolutely. But I'll also say this: If you couch it in terms like "Wikipedia has failed to live up to its promises," IMO they'll ignore you 100 percent of the time. Putting it in terms that are more like a standard logical argument might at least win you a few sympathizers among the Faithful... I still doubt it would be enough to generate even one AfD nomination, but you never know, I suppose.

Interesting problem!